[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 105 (Monday, July 29, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1437-E1438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IN GOD WE TRUST THREATENED BY PLEDGE SUIT
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Friday, July 26, 2002
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals recently held that the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional because the phrase ``under God,'' combined with daily
recitation of the Pledge, violates the establishment clause of the
Constitution. Following their victory, the plaintiffs vowed to
challenge the motto, ``In God We Trust,'' which appears on American
currency. Fair Lawn, New Jersey Mayor and numismatic expert David L.
Ganz recently published an article in the Numismatic News that analyzes
why ``In God We Trust'' was chosen as the national motto, and why it
should remain on our currency. With the chair's permission, I would
like to submit this article, entitled ``In God We Trust Threatened by
Pledge Suit,'' for the Record. I also urge the members of this body to
support the current Pledge of Allegiance and the continued use of ``In
God We Trust'' on our nation's currency.
[From the Numismatic News, July 16, 2002]
`In God We Trust' Threatened by Pledge Suit--Under the Glass
(By David L. Ganz)
Front-page news and accompanying legislative denunciations
have greeted the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the nation, ``under God,''
indivisible, in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
The successful plaintiffs have separately pledged to initiate
an attack on the national motto, ``In God we Trust'' to
remove it from U.S. currency.
Although the motto has been attacked several times in other
appellate courts--the Supreme Court has never explicitly
ruled on it--there is some question as to what success this
might have, and the consequences to coin and paper money
design.
Involved is the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 00-16423
(9th Cir. June 26, 2002), which was decided by the appellate
court that covers California and much of the American West,
comprising 20 percent of the nation's population and about a
third of its area and natural resources.
Newdow, an avowed athiest, brought the suit because his
young daughter attends a public elementary school in the Elk
Grove Unified School District in California. In accordance
with state law and a school district rule, teachers begin
each school day by leading their students in a recitation of
the Pledge of Allegiance.
Young Miss Newdow is not required to say the pledge; that
was decided some 60 years ago when the case of West Virginia
v. Barnette, a 1943 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court
prohibited compulsory flag salutes. Her father's objection
was that she was intimidated by listening to it, at all.
On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge in
Public Law 642 as ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.'' (The codification is found in 36 U.S.C. Sec. 1972.)
A dozen years later, on June 14, 1954, Congress amended
Section 1972 to add the words ``under God'' after the word
``Nation'' (Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297 68 Stat. 249 (1954)
(``1954 Act'')). The Pledge is currently codified as ``I
pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'' (4
U.S.C. Sec. 4 (1998)).
The following year, 1955, largely at the instigation of
Matt Rothert, later president of the American Numismatic
Association, Congress amended the U.S. Code to require the
national motto to be placed on all coins and currency.
(Earlier, Congress took action to place the motto on the two-
cent piece (1864), and on some gold coins (1908)).
There is some utility in reviewing what the Pledge of
Allegiance is, and for that matter, the history of the
national motto, ``In God we Trust,'' where the ``we'' is not
capitalized and all other letters are.
Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister with socialist
leanings, wrote the original version of the Pledge of
Allegiance Sept. 8, 1892, for a popular family magazine, The
Youth's Companion, a Reader's Digest-like periodical of the
era.
The original pledge language was ``I pledge allegiance to
my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''
A generation later, in 1923 the pledge was adopted by the
first National Flag Conference in Washington, where some
participants expressed concerns that use of the words ``my
flag'' might create confusion for immigrants, still thinking
of their home countries. So the wording was changed to ``the
Flag of the United States of America.'' In 1954, Congress
after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus added the words,
``under God,'' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a
patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of
``In God we Trust'' mandatory on all coins and paper currency
of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, ``In God we
Trust'' became the national motto of the United States.
Several courts have been asked to construe whether or not
the motto was unconstitutional and a violation of the First
Amendment to the Constitution--freedom of religion arguments
being raised.
In a 10th circuit Court of Appeals case arising in
Colorado, Gaylor v. US, 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996), the
Court quoted a number of Supreme Court precedents and
concluded
[[Page E1438]]
that, ``The motto's primary effect is not to advance
religion; instead, it is a form of `ceremonial deism' which
through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably
understood to convey government approval of religious
belief.''
As neat a package as that creates for concluding the
controversy, that is simply not the history of the motto ``In
God we Trust'' or how it found its way onto American coinage.
That story goes back to the bleak days of the Civil War, when
the nation's constitutional mettle was being tested on the
battlefields that left hundreds of thousands of Americans
dead.
From the records of the Treasury Department, it appears
that the first suggestion of the recognition of the deity on
the coins of the United States was contained in a letter
addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. S.P. Chase,
by the Rev. M.R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel,
Ridleyville, Pa., under date of Nov. 13, 1861.
``One fact touching our currency has hitherto been
seriously overlooked, I mean the recognition of the Almighty
God in some form in our coins,'' Watkinson wrote to Secretary
Chase.
``You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were
now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the
antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our
past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that
instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside
the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words `perpetual
union'; within this ring the all-seeing eye, crowned with a
halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its
field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the
folds of the bars the words `God, liberty, law.'
``This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible
citizens could object. This would relieve us from the
ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the
Divine protection we have personally claimed.
``From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning
God as not the least of our present national disasters. To
you first I address a subject that must be agitated,'' he
concluded.
A week later, on Nov. 20, 1861, Chase wrote to James
Pollock, the director of the Mint, ``No nation can be strong
except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense.
The trust of our people in God should be declared on our
national coins.''
He concluded with a mandate: ``You will cause a device to
be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing
in the fewest and terset words possible this national
recognition.''
In December 1863, the director of the Mint submitted to the
secretary of the Treasury for approval designs for new one-,
two- and three-cent pieces, on which it was proposed that one
of the following mottoes should appear: ``Our country; our
God''; ``God, our Trust.'' (Patterns for the two-cent pieces
of this are found in Pollack 370-383.)
Dec. 9, 1863, saw this reply from Chase: ``I approve your
mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington
obverse the motto should begin with the word `Our' so as to
read: `Our God and our country.' And on that with the shield,
it should be changed so as to read: `In God we trust.' ''
The Act of April 22, 1864, created the two-cent piece and
Secretary Chase exercised his rights to make sure the motto
was in the design. By 1866 it had been added to the gold $5,
$10 and $20, and the silver dollar, half dollar, quarter and
nickel.
As Augustus Saint-Gaudens designed the new gold coinage of
1907 at the instigation of his friend President Theodore
Roosevelt, the motto was removed for the reason that
``Teddy'' thought it blasphemous. Congress responded by
legislatively directing its continuation.
Where all this leads in the 21st century remains an
unknown--but an interesting hypothesis can be derived. The
9th Circuit's ``Pledge of Allegiance'' case will be appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court, and likely as not, the ``In God we
Trust'' elimination suit will progress in the U.S. district
court.
As Justice William O. Douglas noted in a concurring opinion
in the 1962 Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421
(1962), ``Our Crier has from the beginning announced the
convening of the Court and then added `God save the United
States and this Honorable Court.' That utterance is a
supplication, a prayer in which we, the judges, are free to
join.''
Justice Douglas, one of the most liberal in first amendment
views, saw little the matter with it. Indeed, he said, ``What
New York does on the opening of its public schools is what
each House of Congress does at the opening of each day's
business.''
The 9th Circuit, by contrast, says ``The Pledge, as
currently codified, is an impermissible government
endorsement of religion because it sends a message to
unbelievers `that they are outsiders, not full members of the
political community, and an accompanying message to adherents
that they are insiders, favored members of the political
community.' ''
An earlier 9th Circuit case in 1970 which dealt with a
direct attack on the motto on the coinage was briefly
discussed in a footnote of the lengthy opinion. ``In Aronow
v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970), this court,
without reaching the question of standing, upheld the
inscription of the phrase `In God We Trust' on our coins and
currency. But cf. Wooley v. Maryland, 430 U.S. 705, 722
(1977) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (stating that the
majority's holding leads logically to the conclusion that `In
God We Trust' is an unconstitutional affirmation of
belief).''
Nothwithstanding Justice Rehnquist's dissent, a more
contemporary analysis of his views are more apparent in later
cases since his becoming Chief Justice, and they suggest
strongly that he has no issue with the pledge or the national
motto on coinage.
Most likely, the next several months will see a hardening
of positions and a wending process in which the lawsuit, and
appeals, move toward highest court resolution. That could
come in 2003 or 2004, in time for it to have impact on the
next presidential election.
For now, until a stay is issued, the pledge is out in
California and the 9th Circuit; God remains on our coinage,
so long as we trust.
____________________